[Author Prev][Author Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Author Index][Thread Index]

Re: [tor-bugs] #28930 [Core Tor/Tor]: consider reordering PT/proxy phases

#28930: consider reordering PT/proxy phases
-------------------------------------------------+-------------------------
 Reporter:  catalyst                             |          Owner:  ahf
     Type:  enhancement                          |         Status:
                                                 |  needs_review
 Priority:  Medium                               |      Milestone:  Tor:
                                                 |  unspecified
Component:  Core Tor/Tor                         |        Version:
 Severity:  Normal                               |     Resolution:
 Keywords:  pt, proxy, 040-deferred-20190220,    |  Actual Points:  8.5
  ex-sponsor-19, network-team-                   |
  roadmap-2019-Q1Q2, ex-28018-child, bootstrap,  |
  ex-sponsor19                                   |
Parent ID:                                       |         Points:  3
 Reviewer:  catalyst                             |        Sponsor:
-------------------------------------------------+-------------------------

Comment (by catalyst):

 Replying to [comment:10 ahf]:
 > Moving this to needs review.
 >
 > PR in https://github.com/torproject/tor/pull/1151
 Thanks!

 The stuff to explicitly note whether we're using a PT looks good. I
 haven't done manual testing of it yet.

 I think when we talked about this on IRC we agreed to have separate new
 phases for "PT client is connecting/connected to its proxy"?

 (Summary -- `control-spec.txt` already is overly specific and refers to
 the TCP connection to the PT proxy. So my proposed reordering turns out to
 be wrong. I think having more specific new bootstrap phases also makes
 troubleshooting easier.)

 >For the reviewer: Should we change the tests in test_controller_events
 to instead of storing a single string each time we have a bootstrap
 event, that we instead append to a list and then check if the list is
 correct after all the state transitions have happened?

 Yes, I think there might places in the unit tests where that would be
 helpful. Or maybe make the entire "make a state change and assert an
 expected bootstrap message" a macro?

--
Ticket URL: <https://trac.torproject.org/projects/tor/ticket/28930#comment:12>
Tor Bug Tracker & Wiki <https://trac.torproject.org/>
The Tor Project: anonymity online

_______________________________________________
tor-bugs mailing list
tor-bugs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-bugs